Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
artificial rewards won't have much effect and can
make people feel cynical” (O'Dell & Grayson,
1998, p. 82).
At SalesCom, sharing product information
helps sales and marketing staff work more ef-
fectively. Similarly, materials developed for one
client can be adapted for other clients, as long as
the original author is confident that their generos-
ity will be reciprocated. Closely knit engineering
groups at EnginCom may be eager to share within
the group, but more wary of sharing knowledge
with other groups that compete for internal re-
sources. Conversely, it is very difficult to create
effect KM in broader, less cohesive groups. Many
public KM sites, including ResourceOrg, fail to
reach critical mass; visitors don't see enough use-
ful content, and so are reluctant to invest energy
to contribute content of their own.
A bottom-up approach worked well at Engin-
Com, although it led to problems later when the
engineering groups were reluctant to switch from
their organic KM system to a different system
deployed by the organizational IT department.
It also worked at SalesCom, where the project's
original sponsors could demonstrate a working
system before requested high-level support for
broader deployment.
Understand & Manage the KM Market
Recognize that the KM system is a market (in the
economic sense). There are
sellers
who provide
or offer knowledge, and
buyers
who need or want
knowledge. There are also
brokers
who try to bring
buyers and sellers together. A factor analysis of
wiki contributions (Majchrzak, Wagner, & Yates,
2006, see above) identifies a fourth role:
editors
who integrate and (re-)organize existing content.
People and organizations perform these roles, but
so do systems and tools - the system is a broker,
and improvements to its user interface (particularly
its search, navigation, and authoring functions)
can enhance the efficiency of the market. Mader
(2008, p. 12) identifies additional roles in wiki,
including some roles which make the system less
efficient or less productive.Although most markets
assume that buyers and sellers exchange goods
directly, markets such as KM systems where this
does not occur can be understand using “balanced
value flows” (Ghosh, 2005).
People and organizations perform the roles of
seller, buyer, broker, and editor for a variety of
reasons. Clearly, a buyer hopes to obtain useful
knowledge from the system; but the incentives
for sellers, brokers, and editors are less obvious,
and thus more important to understand. “One of
the challenges of knowledge management is to
ensure that knowledge sharing is rewarded more
than knowledge hoarding” (Davenport & Prusak,
2000, p. 29). Incentives can be considered from
several perspectives. Davenport and Prusak (2000,
p. 31-34) identify three categories.
Reciprocity
is
Top-Down or Bottom Up?
It is important to determine whether a specific
KM project is being initiated top-down or bot-
tom-up, and plan accordingly. Particularly with
wikis, both approaches are feasible. As discussed
above, in the 1990s KM projects often needed a
top-down mandate to obtain required resources
for technology, integration, and training. A high-
level champion can help provide resources and
support, and help to align personal and business
incentives. Even if participation is mandated, a
champion should model participation and continu-
ally remind others to participate (Charman, 2006).
However, Charman also points out that top-down
approaches can stall when the mandate changes
or priorities shift, and that bottom-up approaches
are preferable because they are more likely to
become self-sustaining. A wiki's low cost, ease
of use, and general flexibility make it possible
for KM projects to start within small groups and
gradually grow in size and scope. Thus, in most
situations, a bottom-up approach is preferable,
and most of the project factors discussed below
focus on bottom-up projects.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search